 |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
Current Calls:
EXTENDED! Issue 20 Medical Surveillance
EXTENDED! Issue 21 Gender, Sexuality and Surveillance
Surveillance & Society invites work on any aspect of surveillance in contemporary societies from all academic disciplines and beyond.
We particularly welcome innovative transdisciplinary contributions.
We encourage submission of work that would benefit specifically from the
electronic format, i.e.: work featuring images, video or audio.
We welcome work that challenges divides between the academic and wider
society.
Drawing on Foucault’s (1977) analysis of ‘political anatomy’, Armstrong (1983; 1995) argues that the 20th Century marked a shift in the nature of the clinical gaze, from one which focused on the interior of the body, to one that explored the body in relation to its exterior. Armstrong (1995) describes this new mechanism of power as ‘surveillance medicine’. In what others have described as medicalisation (Illich, 1975), or healthism (Crawford, 1980), this extended medical gaze has redrawn the boundaries between health, illness and disease to promote a regime of total health. Under this regime, the individual is not just subjected to the technologies of medical surveillance, but is expected to engage in the practice of self-surveillance.
Surveillance studies has highlighted how contemporary surveillance is neither limited, nor specific, in either scope or design (Lyon, 2002). From cradle to grave, the medical surveillance of the human body has, for many, taken on a routinisation that has served to normalise the political anatomy of the body. However, in the 21st Century increased health surveillance, biotechnology and geneticisation (Lippman, 1991) have contributed to the reinforcement and extension of the continuum between health, illness and disease – in what some have described as a ‘dangerous future’ (Macintyre, 1995; Brand, 2005). But the notion that surveillance as a practice or regime is something that is directly imposed upon passive, medicalised bodies is increasingly challenged. Tulle-Winton (2000) argues that the dispersion of power opens up the possibility of resistance. By this he means that because individuals are all variably involved in his or her own regulation it is possible for people to resist the process. Indeed, over forty years ago, Roth (1963) argued that while the power to define markers of recovery from TB were located in the medical domain, patients did not act as passive bodies waiting for qualities to be awarded to them; rather they participated in the interpretation of signs.
In this special edition of Surveillance & Society we ask whether increasing medical surveillance does, indeed, constitute a dangerous future. In particular, this special edition seeks to explore the interplay between reassurance and obligation on the one hand, and resistance and negotiation on the other. Full papers, research notes, reviews, opinion pieces, art and poetry are welcomed. In particular, contributions are invited in, but are not limited to, the following areas:
- biotechnology, genetic risk factor information and health surveillance
- the communication of threat and risk in medical surveillance
- disease surveillance and the use of health information systems
- intensive care: the surveillance of bodies that are neither dead, fully alive or self-regulating
- public health prevention: the medical surveillance of healthy bodies
- medical surveillance and professional practice
- reassurance, obligation, resistance and negotiation in medical surveillance
- class, gender, ethnicity and age: diversity, power and social sorting.
(Editors: : Kirstie Ball, Nicola Green, Hille Koskela & David J. Phillips)
Since its inception, surveillance studies has highlighted how monitoring practices divide, classify, order and sort target populations. It has been argued not only that populations assigned to different categories are subjected to different intensities and kinds of surveillance, but also that surveillance itself is integral to the production of those populations.
With a few exceptions, gender and sexuality – as ubiquitous structuring principles in society – have been neglected within surveillance studies. The body and its desires, as they are invoked in mainstream surveillance studies, tend to be assumed rather than specified. In this special issue of Surveillance and Society, we are therefore interested in explicitly examining the relations among gender, sexuality, and surveillance. Hence, this issue foregrounds and highlights how the gaze is gendered and sexualized, how surveillance is experienced across populations, and how the construction of subjectivities and bodies via surveillance practices invokes gender and sexuality. Moreover, we hope to consider how feminist and queer theories might be used to understand and explain surveillance practices, and to highlight debates about the technocentrism associated with surveillance studies. Surveillance studies is itself historically constructed by male theorists, and it is notable that key feminist works that focus on discipline, subjectivity, power and the body [such as that of Bordo (1989, 1993), Butler (1990), McNay (1992), Ramazanoglu (ed, 1993) and Sawicki (1991)] remain marginal within the field. We therefore ask whether feminist or queer thought may also impact and reconstruct the concepts and theories of surveillance studies itself.
Contributions are welcome on any of the following themes, which might include, but are not limited to:
- the surveillance of women/men
- the construction of normative gender and sexual identities
- exhibitionism, voyeurism, desire and surveillance technologies
- vulnerability & exposure, border/ boundary movement and violation
- surveillance and the body
- gender & medical surveillance - biotechnologies, reproductive technologies, alcohol & addiction
- feminist theory, the panopticon and power
- queer theory, normativity and power
- gender-based identification, identity, subjectivity and discipline
- surveillance and sexual subcultures
- gendering the watchers & the watched
- discourses of masculinity, femininity, hetero-normativity and surveillance
• The formation of anti-surveillance movements; conventional and non-conventional modes of challenging surveillance;
• The potentiality of using sousveillance and/or forms of counter-surveillance as means of engendering resistance to publicly and/or privately sponsored surveillance schemes;
• The use of anti-surveillance technologies (such as disabling, encryption and anonymizer tools);
• The creation of simulated identities and other deceptions aimed at subverting surveillance;
• Resistance through constitutional and legislative measures;
• Resistance through the use of privacy structures, such as data protection commissioners;
• Resistance from within bureaucracies and agencies of social control, including both every-day and/or organized modes of resistance (for example, workers lobbying for the removal of systems that surveil them). This may also include resistance through the translation (or selective deployment) of surveillance systems (for example, teachers in public schools helping students circumvent extreme, surveillance-enabled school discipline), and;
• The question of whether resistance to surveillance is ultimately possible in the short or long term.
These topics are offered as suggestions, and we are also open to other subjects not outlined above that speak to resistance to surveillance as a special theme of scholarship, including art work.
Please contact the guest-editors: Laura Huey, University of Western Ontario, or Luis Fernandez, Northern Arizona University, ) in advance to discuss proposed topics.
All submissions to Surveillance & Society will be subject to the most rigorous quality standards. All articles will be fully peer-reviewed: each will be read anonymously by three independent referees. Other submissions will be subject to different forms of review (see below). The final decision on any submission rests with the Editors.
Submissions
should be in one of the following formats:
In addition, Surveillance Resources ,our surveillance studies resource centre is building an 'Encyclopedia of Surveillance', consisting of short factual articles and key references on all aspects of surveillance. Click here for details.
We may also, at the Board's discretion, publish longer pieces or other submissions, for example interviews, that do not fit the guidelines below.
Books for Review:
We do not carry regular book reviews, however we are happy to consider notable contributions to the field for review.
1. Articles should usually
be between 3,000 and 8,000 words, not including references (but see above).
2. The author(s) should send articles as a Microsoft Word html files (preferable), or compatible word-processed files (.doc, .rtf, .wpd etc.). The final journal format of the articles will be .pdf.
3. Articles can be sent either as an e-mail attachment, or on standard floppy disc or recordable compact disc (CD-R, CD-RW).
3. It is the responsibility of the author to ensure submissions are free of viruses, worms etc. Files containing any such programs will be destroyed.
4. Copies of any graphical material in articles should be included separately as attachments or as individual files on the disc(s).
5. Articles should be in English, although we will also accept articles in English accompanied by a translation in another major language. Usually only the English version will be refereed, so it is the author's responsibility to make sure that any suggested changes are also made to the non-English version.
6. Articles should be written clearly and be accessible to a readership beyond academic circles.
7. Submission should not be already under review, or submitted for review, by any other refereed journal while under consideration by Surveillance & Society. We co-operate fully with other journals in opposing this practice.
8. Sexist, racist, ageist, homophobic and libelous language is not acceptable.
9. The document should contain a title page listing the title of the paper, the name(s) and address(es) of the author(s), and acknowledgments of outside help etc.
10. The text of the article should be double-spaced, and typed in a font size of 12 pt or above.
11. Major subheadings should be in Bold. Headings for subsections within those sections should be in Italics.
12. Any footnotes within the document should be kept to a minimum, and should be hyperlinked if possible.
13. References should be double-spaced in a bibliography on a separate page or pages at the end of the document. References to printed work should follow the following format:
Ball, K. (2001) Organizations, computer based performance monitoring and the classificatory impulse: the question of ethics. Surveillance Categories, Risk and Social Ordering Conference, Queens University, Ontario, Canada, 3rd-5th May.
Graham, S. (1998) Space of surveillant simulation: new technologies, digital representations, and material geographies. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 16(4): 483-504.
Lyon, D. (1994) The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Oxford: Polity Press.
Norris, C., J. Moran and G. Armstrong (1998) Algorithmic surveillance: the future of automated visual surveillance. In C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong (eds.) Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control. Aldershot: Ashgate, 255-267.
Wood, D. (2001) The Hidden Geography of Transnational Surveillance. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Within the text, references should be made as (Author surname, year of publication: page number), if possible with the reference hyperlinked to the appropriate item in the bibliography at the end of the article.
14. Electronic materials should be referenced in the bibliography following the Modern Language Association guidelines (see New Mexico State University Library site, for details).
Within the text, electronic references should be made as for printed work, or as footnotes, and should be hyperlinked to the external web address. Please do NOT write the full URL in the text.
Return to the guidelines index
Reviews of policy, technical or other developments in surveillance will be considered by the Editors. Reviews will be moderated by the Editors, although outside referees will be sought where the technical content necessitates.
They should:
usually be not more than 4000 words in length (not including references)
aim to summarise and critique developments in a particular area
not be overly theoretical in nature
otherwise follow the guidance
for articles
Return
to the guidelines index
Opinion pieces are shorter writings designed to provoke discussion. They will be moderated for legally and ethically acceptable content only.
They should:
be up to 2000 words in length (not including references)
have a minimal number of references
be provocative
otherwise follow the guidance for articles
Return
to the guidelines index
Surveillance & Society encourages submissions that make use of the possibilities offered by the electronic medium.
We therefore welcome responses to surveillance in the form of photography, video, multimedia, hypertext prose/poetry, codework, etc.
However please note that we cannot act as curators, and would generally expect only complete, original pieces, with any accompanying explanatory text and guidance for the viewer / reader to be provided or arranged for by the creator(s).
Please contact the editors if you wish to submit such a piece.
Return
to the guidelines index
We actively encourage responses to and discussion based on any of the pieces published by Surveillance & Society. They will appear on our Discussion Forum.
Responses will be moderated for legally and ethically acceptable content only.
In general, these should follow the guidelines for Opinion or Artistic Presentations.
Return
to the guidelines index
Downloadable Guidelines for Referees
Downloadable Referee's Report Form:
Surveillance & Society Editorial Assistant,
Emily Smith
The Surveillance Project
c/o Department of Sociology
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
K7L 3N6
